Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship

[Andrew Savory]

Hi,

(Thanks, Ciaran, for your balanced and well thought out response ... as
usual ;-)

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, MJ Ray wrote:

> I can see practical problems with this.  First, we are approached with
> offers of sponsorship (where they offer to produce, fund and/or donate
> materials or services to us) which are not offers to donate money.

We have choices here. Either we decide we'll only accept monetary
contributions to make life easier, or we assign a monetary value to any
assistance, and list them on the donors page based on that.

I don't think we should necessarily order the donors page in terms of
value either - just a simple alphabetical listing.

> Secondly, how long will donor messages last for?

If the date of the donation is in the page, it would be straightforward to
remove it after a period of time - 6 months? 1 year?

> Because we don't keep track of materials after we distribute them, we
> cannot tell if a sponsored print run (for example) is still in
> circulation somewhere.

I don't see that this matters.

> If list sponsors for a fixed time, we may have them listed long after
> their sponsorship is over, or when we would have junked their material
> to avoid bad publicity (I'm thinking of certain projects sponsored by
> SCO here).  Alternatively, we may remove their listing while their
> sponsored work is still in use.  Neither seems particularly just to
> me.

I don't see that this matters. If company X gives AFFS £1000 in January
2003, then it's perfectly reasonable to remove their name from the donors
list in January 2004 if that is what is stipulated in their sponsorship
agreement with us.

> Finally, won't the donors page become a ghetto?  Who would visit it?
> Will it be attractive to sponsors anyway.

Aren't all AFFS web pages a ghetto anyway? :-)

> > Rationale:
> > * Printing company names/logos on leaflets may cause confusion as
> >   to who "really" runs AFFS.  Remember that the target audience of
> >   leaflets is people that don't already know about AFFS.
>
> The 5% clause was aimed at minimising this, but probably a clearer
> statement on the web site is required.

Or as has been suggested, don't mention other entities at all on printed
materials, simply point to the web page.

> > * Leaflet content could never be out of date, only the donors
> >   page needs updating.
> > * An equal distribution of credit is ensured to donors.
>
> Not all donations are equal, IMO.

Which is why we need to make sure they become equal.

A gift of £1000 shouldn't really be seen as any more important than a gift
of £100. They may have equal relative value in the eyes of the giver.

> > * No policing necessary ("is company/department X a true Free
> >   Software company/department?")
> > * It makes it possible for AFFS to accept donations from any company
> >   since we wouldn't be giving them ad-space, and we'd mention that
> >   no endorsement is implied.
>
> I don't see why this is less necessary for a donors register on our
> web site than a sponsored publicity item.

I guess it depends how principled we want to be. Is it okay for us to
accept a £1000 donation from Microsoft UK?

If not, why not?

> I'm not sure.  Are there solutions to the practical problems, or do
> people think that they are worthwhile?

I think Ciaran's idea is about the fairest so far. Although the
distinction between sponsor and donor needs to be clear - a sponsor is
entitled to expect more for their money, and is probably not what AFFS
needs.


Andrew.

-- 
Andrew Savory                                Email: address@hidden
Managing Director                              Tel:  +44 (0)870 741 6658
Luminas Internet Applications                  Fax:  +44 (0)700 598 1135
Orixo alliance: http://www.orixo.com/          Web:    www.luminas.co.uk